Next gen consoles will be maxed out in within an hour

The Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4 will be maxed out by developers within an hour, Hitman: Absolution game director Tore Blystad has said.

"Every time you get a new piece of hardware, within an hour you max it out as a developer; that's just how it is," he explained. "You keep pushing it right to the max, every time a new system comes out you have to make a bucket for who is getting what from the memory and performance. Is the audio getting a lot? The animation? The A.I.? They're fighting for resources and this fight is very healthy because it will make people optimize the different elements of the game.

"Of course, it's great to get more power, but it's very quickly going to be sucked up by any kind of part of development. That's always the problem, right?"
(Hitman: Absolution, Next-Gen)

No they won't. What people don't understand is it ALL depends on the game engine and the developers. That's why Uncharted 1 looked great...and then U2 looked even better. Oh, and then U3 looked amazing. But wait, The Last of Us somehow looks better than U3.

It's all about refining the game engine and being clever with what you have to work with. There will always be a better way to do *something*, that will lead to improvements.

syngamerhas a valid point. I mean we can look at the quality of games that launch with a platform and compare them with the ones at or near its end.

Its the same hardware from start to finish but the programming got better because they learned how to wring out more textures on screen or find tricks to compensate for any restrictions.

It has been this way for years. Just compare the graphical fidelity of a game like altered beast on the genesis to a game like rangerX. Yeah they are totally different types of games but they are made to play on the same hardware. The level of detail on rangerX and amount of scrolling is above and beyond what they thought the platform could do when it was released.

It takes time and dedication but we are seeing a development cycle where WE as gamers are getting pushy for releases instead of letting these guys finish their product. It could also be the pressure of the bigger companies to meet deadlines forcing these devs to cut corners as well.

i feel bad for the real hard workers (the programers) because they are stuck in the middle. They are being tasked with making a quality product but as cheap as they can. Which is what usually leads to improving on a formula they previously used. Refining and optimizing their code to do stuff that it hadnt before or do it better than before.

As to the next gen hardware, I think people will really be surprised when it does not represent the typical generational leap in specs but is more in line with converging more features into one box than before.

we are in a modern society of convenience and playing games on these machines has been the same for over 30 years. Consumers are wanting more than that and just by looking at the additions to the ps3 and 360 we can see they really like a platform that does more.

A bump in specs...yes, but the real difference is the more these platforms can provide as a service to the consumer.

There are loads of games that look better this side of the console lifespan than the beginning of it because developers get better with the hardware as time goes on. Not sure what this guys on about to be honest =/ lol

I understand what he is talking about, it will be maxed out in a hour in a way... but still over a time developers will learn to use it more professional, optimize and learn new ways to do same stuff with eating less system resources.. he meant that if you make game in a fast lazy way, you can max out anything...

I haven't read the article because the sensationalism title was all I needed to see to know what the author was trying to accomplish. Of course the devs will max out (or come close) with first-gen games. It's like build...well...anything. The first time will always take longer, not look quite as good, and cost more. With each revision you learn new ways to do "this" or "that". There really was no need for the article author to point out the obvious.

@first post Third party devs only optimize to a certain degree. So in a way he is right.

3rd party devs rely more on raw power.

Assassins creed 3 is on pc,ps3,xbox 360 & now wiiU. Also they said they plan to support ps3 & 360 after ps4 and 720 are out. http://www.playstationlifes...

So they will be developing for pc, ps3, 360, ps4, 720 & wiiU.

Imagine them trying to be clever and really learn everything about each piece of hardware. This would cost more time and money & probably wouldn't make them more money(keep in mind next gen development cost).

Also as far as playstation goes. They will know the hardware form day1.

fun fact: only Hard Drives in the world that come in 256gb are ssd's..

so Basically I am saying if the consoles are not powerful enough the 3rd party devs that have to do more than 1st party devs will hit there potential limit fast.

1st party developers will always have the best looking games since they work only with one piece of hardware. If bethesda was only working on ps3 the ps3 version of skyrim would be less buggy I guarantee you that.

I could be wrong but I really doubt the UE4 and Luminous Engine will be pushed to their full potential on the PS4 and 720, just based on the leaked specs of both consoles and based on what we've seen from both engines.

I get the feeling that 3rd party devs will have to do A LOT of optimization to get the most out of the next gen consoles for truly next-gen games. Also, expect multiplatform titles down-scaled from the 720 and PS4 to look like utter garbage on the PS3 and Xbox 360.

I dont think you understand what he means, its not about how good it looks its about pushing the machines to the max. It can be done easily, and it will be done so that they know what they are working with.

When we get a new car we put it on spin barrels and see how fast it goes. Once we know how fast it goes we know what we're working with. However, to get to our destination it will take a few rides before we learn the fastest routes. Similarly how it takes a few games to get the best out of a console.

@syngamer Even engine optimization has its limits because of the Law of Diminishing Returns.. I agree with you, however, that Mr. Blystad (of Hitman) is over-generalizing the truth about "maxing out" the next gen.

The article below is a great description of the limits of engine optimization:

Good article. This is exactly why I hope the PS4 rumors are true. 1080p 60fps & 3D. If Sony can give developers hardware that can *easily* achieve those targets, then I have high hopes for next-gen. A lot of developers were quoted saying they wish the current-gen consoles had more RAM. And I'm sure they still want more with the new consoles, but really, it's all about the CPU and how much data can be processed.

Real-time calculations are generally "faked" because the current consoles just don't have enough processing power to do that AND output at 720p 30fps, let alone 1080p 60fps and in 3D. I'm not saying next-gen will be 100% real-time calculations, but it sounds like we'll be in for a treat. Especially considering the SDKs should be far more mature this time around than they were early on for the 360 and PS3.

Ultimately, the developers will still "max out" the next-gen consoles, and returns will diminish, but to claim this will happen within the first hour is just...talking out of his ass.

That's not untapped power in PS3. Those games you mentioned are simple with linear game design. Sony can even make The Last Of Us 2 look better than 1 if they take the AI character out of the game and make the corridor game even tighter.

Shiny paint has little to do with what people are talking about related to console capability.

GTA4, GTA5, Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption, Halo @4, Horizon, Watchdogs and other games like that are true technical marvels and is in the end what devs are talking about and not Silent Hill type static, linear games.

What he dev is talking about is similar to a Video Card Stability test for a PC. Something like Furmark.

What that does is test as much as possible loads on the GPU to see if it can remain stable.

Most likely developers don't mind burning out test models if that information can be used to make safer (obviously) and better running applications (optimized games). The later being made AFTER the console has been "maxed out" by the stability test.

yeah tell that to bethesda who still can't figure out ps3, also than why didn't we see halo4,uncharted 3 quality games at launch if the devs are so smart to figure this thing out?

also why doesn't hitman look better when you could have maxed out the system?

WrAiTh Sp3cTr3

that's just dumb. its the age of internet people can learn stuff. if anyone has been gaming for 15-20 years they know a lot more than you think.

simple question look at games in 2005-2006 and now and see the difference so if developers could figure out how to use the system to its max why didn't we get the best quality games at launch? and that is why wii-u won't be used to its max for atleast 2 years till everyone can understand how it works in a positive and negative way

I don't think people understand the difference between hardware being maxed out and games looking better over time.

Hence why dumb ass comments get so many agrees, someone could make a simple benchmark for a day one console launch and max out the hardware.....

Prime95 a simple CPU temp/stability testing piece of software less then 1MB in size maxes out any CPU on the market.

Games looking progressively better has nothing to do with maxing out hardware, maxing out hardware is simply running the hardware at full throttle so that it can't possibly give any more which has nothing to do with the visual quality of a game.

@SynGamer: He's actually telling the truth. They max it out on purpose. To see what the limits are. They'll create in house tech/animation demos just to push the system to it's limits from there they fraction the resources out as he said. People have no idea how taxing really great sound can be. The little things eat up resources. This is why some games have so/so graphics and great sound or vice versa. The thing is as time goes on they learn little tricks to make you think something looks better than it actually does. They call it smoke and mirrors but it's really just blurring and high pass filters.

I don't know why you got all the agrees and a well said, when you didn't comprehend what the guy was saying. You actually kinda even explained it yourself. Using what's given to you and optimization are 2 different things.

Apparently you and the n4g community missed the point. Maxing out the system is independent of how optimized a game engine is. They're maxing it out at the beginning, but get better at using the resources over time.

'Community'! It's generally a bunch of people who give a lengthy, well considered post a Disagree on the grounds that they didn't have the brainpower to understand it - or that it insults their pseudo intelligence. They appoint a handful of people who they regard as 'N4G legends' and give them a ludicrously high number of Agrees for their simplistic statements. And this is somehow elevated above what must be a considerable number of better written gaming websites. But that doesn't matter presumably because it is somehow more egalitarian to pat the medicore on the back more enthusiastically for their bullshit statements. And so I will get loads of Disagrees just for not being friendly. If you want friends get real ones.

No, they instantly max out the hardware. They just better utilize what the system can do over tme which is why Uncharted 2 look better then 1. Uncharted 1 maxed out the hardware, but they optimized the crap out of their code which is why Uncharted 2 looks better. Maxing out the hardware doesn't mean games can't look better on the system.

Sorry none of those games had good graphics. All they had was good artwork. The graphics sucked. The textures were horrible with no filtering and objects were horribly jagged with no anti-aliasing and it ran at some pathetic resolution like 800x600.

Devs say this everytime, devs will always find ways to 'max' the console during their game development, when they make other games they will find out another way to 'max' the console for the games they make.

Not sure why someone disagreed. It's true, developers generally "max out" the platform they are working on...not because they've used everything they can, but simply because their game engine and methods leave a lot to be optimized over the coming years.

That's why Naughty Dog said they maxed out the PS3 with Uncharted 2...and then again with Uncharted 3. U3 was clearly a major improvement both visually and gameplay-wise. And early indications point to The Last of Us being a further improvement upon their previous work.

I dont understand why people disagree. Its not only about the graphics. Tell me one PC game that has graphics, art style, animation and technology as the plane sequence in UC3? Or the boat sequence with dynamic ocean waves? Real time fire with the burning chateau? What about those sand particles? Im not even mentioning the characters animations that humiliate any pc game out there.

PC has 'better' graphics, but that doesnt mean it makes it more beautiful. You can have an hyper realistic painting but people would prefer Monet style because it's prettier, it has an unique art style and some meaning behind it. That's why Journey is nominated for Best Graphics at this years VGAs.

In other words, they max out the consoles power witht what they have to work with (their engine etc).

Of course the title isn't trying to say that they won't improve the efficiency in which they work with the available power of the console, just that when ever a developer releases a game, that is generally them maxing it out.

I was just thinking about buying Hitman but when I read such nonsense coming from its dev, I now have doubts if this game runs well on PS3. I'll wait then. Oh well, Mr Blystad, you won't be getting my money then. Next time think twice, man.

Just because it's maxed out, doesn't mean they're using it to it's fullest potential. Someone could max out the PS3 writing a Pong game if they wanted to.

I don't even think Sony were aware that the PS3 would be pushing graphics that look as good as Uncharted 3 when they first released the console. It really makes you think about how amazing the developers are with the limited hardware they have to work with.

The graphics on the PS3 keep getting better and better every year and I never had to upgrade it. It's great isn't it?

Indeed. The solution isn't always to throw more processing power / ram at the machine. I mean, yes, it would certainly help a lot, but then you wouldn't get the benefits of seriously creative optimization and seriously creative art design.

A mix of both is key. Limitations in creative materials leads to interesting and novel developments. Of course, at some point, the tech will need to evolve. That time is soon, as many PC enthusiasts have pointed out. I agree. But my isn't it amazing to see how things have developed this generation? Excited to see Last of Us and GTAV!

One of the reasons I'm primarily a console gamer is that even though the graphics are sub par compared to a gaming PC, is that consoles tend to show graphical progression over the years without the need for upgrades since you can focus on one design spec.

It's not about the hardware limits. Good devs build great engines around it and try to get the maximum out of the hardware. Look at the Uncharted franchise, if you analyse each level and graphics, you'll see the amount of work they put into each detail which is covered by small tricks to make it look better than it actually does. That's not only a good engine, it's talent, it's a great team behind it.

Somehow 6-7 years into this generation, and PC games don't look 6-7 years ahead of consoles. I mean, is BF3 PC that much better than KZ3, Halo 4 or Uncharted 3? Sure it's more stable, better perfomance, but that doesnt make it more beautiful. There is not one single PC game that blows all console games out of the water, not even one.

This is nonsense, anyone can see the vast improvement of new releases in comparison to launch titles.

This is why with all it's issues the wiiu won't be great but it will do ok, dev just need time to get there head around it, sucks really when you here so much negative news, for each new console launch, yet year after year these ageing machines support finer and finer products.

I fail to see the point in reporting that they will oven a program that will run a few different tasks to show the computing power, if that's all the articles about then no surprise then, this is basic stuff, even then optimisation is key still.

I call BSConsoles have never been maxed in the first year let alone an hr.

I remember even during the NES/SNES/Genesis days games just always got better as devs got more experience with the hardware, graphical fidelity improved, and this is true of the 360/PS3 as well. Doesn't Uncharted 3 look better than Uncharted 1? Doesn't Halo 4 look better than 3?

I don't agree.I will give you all a very simple example as a reason: You have a GPU that is good in raw poly count but not so good with anti aliasing,yet you don't know this because it is too early on the machine's life cycle or you simply want to shove standard AA on the frame anyway,and that implies in reducing the amount of detail you can have per model on the scene.That ladies and gentleman is not using power that IS there...waiting...untapped.

Coming from such a horrible developer means nothing. There games look like crap and play have the same gameplay as uncharted basically. When they make a game that looks remotely as good as uncharted they can start talkin dumbshit.

Well, of course they max the hardware out. Have you ever seen a developer saying: "Okay, let's not use this 20 percent of the hardware power just for the fun of it."

Engine updates are what you're talking about when graphics improvement is concerned in sequels. Devs write new codes, find new ways to push better visuals, with the same hardware and again, by using the hardware "at max". If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't see any FPS drops or tearing issues at all: those show you that the hardware is struggling to handle the code.

Believe it or not, even the sh#ttiest developers max the hardware out if they're incompetent on optimizing their code.

Anybody can max out a new piece of hardware quickly if your just cram it with a bunch of crappy coding, but game devs do this to see what they have to work with. Example: You want Halo 5 to run at 60fps and run at 1080p. You have HIgh Rez textures, Advanced AI, motion capture programs, ect. But you see that the system is at it's max. So something has got to give. You either take it lower to 720p, or cut the framrate in half to 30fps, or take away some of those textures.

This is what happens when developers work on new hardware, thus is why launch games don't really look all that spectacular. Now when they figure it out more down the months and years. That same game will run better, have better sound, textures, frame rates because the time they spend with it and able to "unlock" more of its potential.

I think Sony will be easier to develop for then the PS3 because of not having the Cell and change of memory designs. The next Xbox may be even easier already rumored to have the 360's hardware specs already in it including the 720 unknown specs.

Of course, they use old hardware. Sure dev can tweak and optimise, show a bit of magic tricks to make the game looks better. They will do that the whole generation, they don't have a choice. In the end we end up with sub 720p games that barely run at 30 fps, not sure if that's what yuo call a "great experience".

So is this a "consoles suck because their hardware is static, and PC is better cuz I can upgrade it whenever some new comes out" kinda post?

Cuz if so, it's pretty lame and unnecessary.

On topic, saying something like this is misleading, and I believe intentionally so. Yes, he DOES say that optimization is key, but the "maxing out" he's talking about isn't what people mean when they say the same.

I mean, unless I'm wrong, most people mean that a FULLY WORKING GAME maxes out the system. Not having one aspect or another do it.

Like I said, I could be wrong about what most other people think of. But I know that's what I think of when that phrase is used.

Don't a lot of current developers say there is still plenty left in the current consoles? I don't think they will be maxed out within an hour at all. Look at the release games for the Xbox 360, games like Prey and Saints Row, they were both great games, but hardly touched the true power of the Xbox 360, seven years later you get a great and true HD Halo game for the first time.

You know, it's unfashionable to say but a few parts of Uncharted : Drake's Fortune were more interesting than anything the sequels came up with. It's bound to be that way- they didn't make the original game to be underwhelming in retrospect. It's a really hardcore game in ways that the sequel aren't, apart from the closing chapters of Uncharted 3.

I love the jetskis part - the sequels give you no vehicles to control that take properly mastering.
Even in terms of graphics that more cartoony look (which they toned down in the sequels) was sometimes very compelling such as in explosions.

Uncharted 2 was arguably Naughty Dog's highpoint of the series, for single player anyway. It's just the most rounded (and easiest) game in the series with some of the finest graphical touches that look like the work of no other developer and it doesn't go fully sadistic on you.

N4G, the place where nobody reads the article. He doesn't state that games will not improve from the first hour onwards (don't know how anyone here thinks a game can be made in an hour), he says they max the hardware which isn't hard to do. It takes about 5 minutes to max anyones computer using cryengine, you open up the editor and drop in 1million barrels and your computer will more than likely crash.

If you read the article he says that they 'make a bucket for who is getting what from the memory and performance' to see what is 'fighting for resources and this fight is very healthy because it will make people optimize the different elements of the game'.

I'm amazed after this many years N4G still allows articles with headings like this to be released.